Does Consciousness Influence Quantum Mechanics?
Переглядів 2,117,586
День томуPBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
↓ More info below ↓
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
tinyurl.com/yx9cusk5
Check out the Space Time Merch Store
pbsspacetime.com/
It’s not surprising that the profound weirdness of the quantum world has inspired some outlandish explanations - nor that these have strayed into the realm of what we might call mysticism. One particularly pervasive notion is the idea that consciousness can directly influence quantum systems - and so influence reality. Today we’re going to see where this idea comes from, and whether quantum theory really supports it.
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Matt O'Dowd
Graphics by Leonardo Scholzer & Adriano Leal
Post Production: Yago Ballarini, Max Willians, Pedro Osinski
Directed by: Eric Brown and Andrew Kornhaber
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / @jrsschattenberg
The behavior of the quantum world is beyond weird. Objects being in multiple places at once, communicating faster than light, or simultaneously experiencing multiple entire timelines ... that then talk to each other. The rules governing the tiny quantum world of atoms and photons seem alien. And yet we have a set of rules that give us incredible power in predicting the behavior of quantum system - rules encapsulated in the mathematics of quantum mechanics. Despite its stunning success, we’re now nearly a century past the foundation of quantum mechanics and physicists are still debating how to interpret its equations and the weirdness they represent.
Thanks to our Patreon Supporters
Big Bang Supporters
Alexander Tamas
David Barnholdt
David Nicklas
Fabrice Eap
Juan Benet
Justin Lloyd
Morgan Hough
Quasar Supporter
Christina Oegren
Mark Heising
Vinnie Falco
Hypernova Supporters
Chuck Zegar
Danton Spivey
Donal Botkin
Edmund Fokschaner
Hank S
John Hofmann
John Pollock
John R. Slavik
Jordan Young
Joseph Salomone
Julian Tyacke
Justin Ash
Mathew
Matthew O'Connor
Syed Ansar
Timothy McCulloch
Gamma Ray Burst Supporters
A G
Adrian Hatch
Adrien Molyneux
AlecZero
Andreas Nautsch
Angela Prigge
Bradley Jenkins
Brandon labonte
Brian Blanchard
Craig Stonaha
Dan Warren
Daniel Lyons
David Bethala
DFaulk
Douglas Cantrell
Eric Kiebler
Frederic Simon
Geoffrey Short
Graydon Goss
Greg Smith
John Funai
John Robinson
Jonathan Nesfeder
Josh Thomas
Kevin Lee
Kevin Warne
Kyle Hofer
Malte Ubl
Michael Conroy
Nick Virtue
Nick Wright
Nickolas Andrew Freeman
Patrick Sutton
Paul Rose
Protius Protius
Robert Ilardi
Scott Gossett
Sean Warniaha
Shane Calimlim
Sipke Schoorstra
Steve Bradshaw
Tatiana Vorovchenko
Tim Stephani
Tonyface
Tybie Fitzhugh
Yurii Konovaliuk
Randall Sylvia
@AaronWhiffin 4 роки тому
I'm often both simultaneously in the pub, and in the taxi home until my wife collapses my wave function. She's the only observer that can do this
@DeclanMBrennan 4 роки тому
And your dinner is both simultaneously on the table and in your dog's stomach.
@larryphillipsjr.1607 4 роки тому
🤣
@richardcook6505 4 роки тому
And you are simultaneously sleeping on both the bed and the couch.
@scottmartin7717 4 роки тому
Brilliant
@aadipandey8237 4 роки тому
You get your dinner but not !
@unpossibly 4 роки тому
I didn't come to PBS Space Time to have my fears of Eyebal-Brain Macintosh guy manifested onscreen.
@kendomyers 4 роки тому
Youve seen that before too?
@baldrbraa 4 роки тому
That only happened in your universe.
@trevthird2566 4 роки тому
Im scared
@Vasharan 4 роки тому
The Eye-Mac.
@1cyanideghost 4 роки тому
Lol 😂🤣
@enriquegarciacota3914 2 роки тому
But my consciousness *can* manifest physical changes in the real world. I can move a pencil with my mind. The way I do this is: my brain sends a bunch of complex signals though my spine, the muscles of my arm and hand move, and they pick and move the pencil.
@leSingeMajestueux 2 роки тому
I know you are kidding and all, but it's actually somewhat true as psychotherapy changes the brain shape. Which is really weird, psychotherapy is just words, ideas, having an impact on something physical, aka your brain.
@machoman4150 2 роки тому
Satisfying answer but imagine if your brain can send signals through your eyes and those signals directly moves the pencil
@aceclover758 2 роки тому
@@machoman4150 yes, it’s called sight. Those signals moving to the pencil are you ability to see it by using light
@spookyactionatadistance2422 2 роки тому
@@aceclover758 no your eyes don't send signals to the object for you to see it..
@aceclover758 2 роки тому
@@spookyactionatadistance2422 Light lets you see Light sends those signals to your eyes, then brain
@mosemusica 2 роки тому
I think a more precise question would be: "Are consciousness and quantum mechanics interconnected?" - we get hung up on this cause and effect conversation when really the more fundamental question is to ask how are these two aspects of our reality connected to each other. What I see here in this video is a beautiful presentation of one of the mysteries we are confronted with as we dive deeper into the properties of our universe. However, the second half of the video is the same old scientific positivist dogma of trying to reason your way out of consciousness being involved. If we are going to land the next big jump in science, I feel we need more imagination than this.
@Harriett2423 2 роки тому
Hardly, the best "theory" for quantum consciousness was the penrose microtubules bullshit which was experimentally proven to be incompatible with decoherence time. Science doesn't just need imagination, you need mathematically rigorous theories and experimental verification, right now we have none of that for quantum consciousness.
@glamdrag 2 роки тому
@@Harriett2423 Nobody is arguing against mathematically rigorous theories and experimental verification. The argument is merely for increase in imagination, creativity, and openness to possibilities that are as of now taboo and dogmatically opposed in people who are stuck in a modern-materialistic worldview. I personally think it's just a matter of time until the paradigm shifts to more openness
@alanabdollahzadeh 2 роки тому
My gut tells me that your appeal to "more imagination" is merely an excuse to avoid an uncomfortable model of reality. If anything, it's the opposite of being open-minded.
@glamdrag 2 роки тому
@@alanabdollahzadeh What is uncomfortable about it to you?
@mosemusica 2 роки тому
@@alanabdollahzadeh "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." "Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life’s coming attractions." "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." who said these things? Albert Einstein
@SirMinelli 4 роки тому
This is the only youtube channel where I get to see the entire video, feel smart while doing so, and by the end of it realizing that I need to have a masters degree on physics to even be able to understand a single word of it. At least I like the backgrounds with them shiny stars.
@mileslow4908 4 роки тому
so relatable
@pumpuppthevolume 4 роки тому
so shiny
@eideticex 4 роки тому
Don't need a masters degree. Just a decade of studying :p
@randomguy263 4 роки тому
@@eideticex That's basically a masters
@imgayasheck595 4 роки тому
@@mileslow4908 then you see how many of the things they said are outdated or flat out wrong
@pranavmando1090 2 роки тому
Conjuring 4: The wave function made me do it
@galiciaart 2 роки тому
Maxwell's demon made me do it
@Road2Med 2 роки тому
haha a conjuring movie i'd actually want to see
@cosmosaic8117 2 роки тому
That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?
@mikemazzola6595 2 роки тому
Every time I watch this channel I come away with a head swim. I took a graduate course or two in quantum physics and electronics three decades ago. After watching a few of these videos, I, for the first time, can reflect positively on the teaching pedagogy that made everything mathematical. Basically, the message from instructor to student was "An electron/photon/[fill in the blank] does this or that. Let's derive an equation and work pages of math to establish what that means." At the time of taking the classes, I felt absolutely comfortable with saying the wavefunction is just a mathematical expression of the probability of outcomes that cannot possibly be known until observed. To me, the particle subject to quantum mechanics was not simultaneously in two (or more) states, but that its actual state just hadn't been observed yet. That meant to me that the superposition of states was just an accounting of the probabilities of what the actual state was. The actual state singularly existed but wasn't known to the observer YET. Crikey! Matt O'Dowd has made a complete hash of my confidence in the above interpretation of the math, obviously confirming his quote from Feynman that those that think they know how quantum mechanics works, don't! The silver lining I see in all my confusion is that the idea of "entanglement" is finally starting to bring wavefunctions into focus as much more than uncertainty expressed in abstract math. Instead, wavefunctions appear to be some kind of metaphysical complexity that explodes the mind and hides something truly amazing about the universe. Matt, keep up the good work while I try to keep up the comprehension as fast as the dialog flies by...
@schmetterling4477 2 роки тому
What you are missing is that quanta are not particles. They are energy values. An energy value does, indeed, not exist until it is being measured. And after it is being measured it doesn't exist, either, because energy can only be spent once. Anybody who ever told you anything about particles simple didn't understand quantum mechanics. Other than that your first paragraph was correct. The wave function doesn't describe a system. It describes a quantum mechanical ensemble, i.e. am infinite number of repetitions of the system. It allows you to calculate statistical outcomes and doesn't have anything to say about an individual outcome. It simply tells us what we don't know.
@mikemazzola6595 2 роки тому
Perhaps. I now realize from watching the PBS Spacetime videos that "my" interpretation described in the second paragraph more closely resembles the EPR interpretation. What I did not know was the history of quantum mechanical interpretations. This history has resolved the EPR paradox in favor of the alternative provided by Bell's theorem. That "my" interpretation is testable and has long since been found to be wrong was news to me! So why was I in the dark until now? Because I didn't have a need to know. I'm an electrical engineer who did my dissertation research in the area of optical processes in semiconductor materials for a specific application. Later, in my professional career I continued to teach and do research in the area of semiconductor devices. We use, by an large, semiclassical physics to achieve awesome practical results. I once joked that learning about Bloch functions, the Kronig-Penney model, and reciprocal space to understand semiconductor bandgaps was one piece of physics too many for my purposes. However, the fact that I still recall that epiphany is a testament that it did me good. The real point I was making was about the pedagogy of teaching quantum mechanics (and thus quantum electronics). Whenever a student asked "why" the answer was "just do the math." That there remains a lack of consensus on cosmology at least in part because of a lack of consensus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics brings home the need to spend more time on the history of the interpretations. History is often the last thing a professor spends time on in a "hard" STEM course. There is just "too much material to cover." Why is my curiosity driving me to revisit a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics? Simple, quantum computing. I have a quasi-professional need to keep track of quantum computing. Three or four years ago I watched a Google TechTalk on UKposts that was intended to be a quick continuing education course on the theoretical justification for quantum computing. I had grown tired of watching UKpostss by industry leaders trying to explain it to the masses. I knew I needed more formalism. Here is the video I watched: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/gWVniauekZVppX0.html. At the 9:42 mark you can hear the familiar pedagogy stated explicitly. If I recall correctly, some place else in this video series the lecturer says how he resolves confusion when it becomes hard to believe that quantum mechanics is real. "You just have to put your head down and do the math."
@schmetterling4477 2 роки тому
@@mikemazzola6595 Yes, that was a huge pile of bullshit. ;-)
@DavidVonR 2 роки тому
@@schmetterling4477 Quantum mechanics can tell us that if a system is in an eigenstate of an observable, then we're guaranteed to observe the corresponding eigenvalue with certainty. For example, if a photon has a polarization angle that exactly matches a plane polarizer, then the photon is guaranteed to survive the polarizer and register with a detector. If the polarization if the photon is pi/2 out of phase with the polarizer, then it's guaranteed not to survive the polarizer, and a detector won't register the photon with certainty. If a system is in a more general state, then quantum mechanics can't tell us what happens in individual cases. It can only give us a probability of different possible outcomes. If we create lots of photons that all have the same polarization, and we pass them through a polarizer, then quantum mechanics tells us the proportion (or probability) that the photons will survive the polarizer and register with a detector. In this case, quantum mechanics can't tell us with certainty what happens to an individual photon. This is because the general state isn't an eigenstate of the observable.
@educational4434 6 місяців тому
Physicist Ed May says that quote attributed to Feynman, about how if you say you understand quantum mechanics you don't understand quantum mechanics, needs to be done away with because it's not true. He says some scientists do understand
@claroruntal3357 2 роки тому
I like how Quantum Mechanics boils down to "If a tree falls in the woods..." cause life is funny that way, lol.
@johnstevens5890 2 роки тому
I just thought the same thing, lol
@terrylambert9787 2 роки тому
"Claro," I write my thoughts down before I read other people's input, I find it entertaining that we both used similar analogies! How Bizarre! And amusing!
@dylsnake2 Рік тому
I like how questions such as these all boil down to the differences people's in interpretations of words. For example, if you define sound as, "Something that my brain perceives as sound," or alternatively, "Vibrations through the air or other materials, that can be heard by a person's ears." If you define the later option, you simply need to prove that the "vibrations" happened, then you would be correct in saying that the tree did make a sound. If instead you use the former option, then your simply using a different interpretation of the word 'sound,' which requires the "hearing" part of it. You could split this definition into two versions, "did you hear it" and "did someone hear it."
@michaelorton605 Рік тому
Well yes, and no...
@jjhay269 Рік тому
Nah the answer is that vibration was made but nothing present to create the sound. Since ears do that
@martiddy 4 роки тому
0:08 It would have been hilarious if he put the outro after that 😄
@22222Sandman22222 4 роки тому
A PBS Space Time episode can only end to the word "spacetime". Maybe it's a physical law symmetrical to the whole universe.
@justpaulo 4 роки тому
Put the intro after wouldn't have been bad either.
@EchoEcho0001 4 роки тому
How come you commwnt every video i wacth????
@fjelimfiels.6954 4 роки тому
o lord thy influence know
@ericgraham8150 4 роки тому
@@EchoEcho0001 how come you watch every video i watch?
@TheNuncFluens 3 роки тому
Maybe wave function is just the universe way of saving RAM.
@RanulHashika 3 роки тому
Underrated comment 😂
@Justin_Bic 2 роки тому
Only rendering what the viewer is observing is the best way to save processing power and it seems everything in the universe flows the most efficient way ever evolving
@Justin_Bic 2 роки тому
If a bear shits in the woods and nobody is around to see it does it really ever happen
@Averymoasycreek 2 роки тому
@@Justin_Bic Well according to the theory he would be in a superposition of going in the woods and not going in the woods
@xDRAGONSHAGGERx 2 роки тому
@@Justin_Bic if the bear is part of the simulation then yeah.. and no 😀
@thenovicenovelist 9 місяців тому
As someone who is spiritual but still relatively grounded in reality, I'm glad you made this video. I tend to eye roll whenever people in spiritual communities try to use scientific terms they know nothing about in order to sound smart while they push views such as victim blaming, pseudoscience, and ignoring injustices in order to make money or feel better about themselves.
@deejayaech4519 9 місяців тому
Agreed
@jacobmccrea3646 9 місяців тому
I don't really think you're grounded in reality I think that you're not religious at all because you want to talk about the Injustice in it. I'm pretty sure you think America is a horrible racist country that needs to be better and stole land and this and that but you stay in this horrible ass country only reason I'm commenting on you it's because your comment had nothing at all to do with this video you used it for your own virtue signaling
@MarloTheBlueberry 8 місяців тому
Yes :D Science can explain spiritualism sometimes..
@winonafrog 7 місяців тому
Cheers, agreed 👌🏼
@thebluefus 5 місяців тому
Spiritual but grounded in reality is such a smug and stupid thing to say
@tyjules9643 2 роки тому
How could two consciousnesses observe exactly simultaneously? One always would collapse the wave function first, even by a small fraction of time, and the second observer would see the result of that collapse.
@woopy6176 2 роки тому
I thought the same thing
@outisnemo8443 2 роки тому
Leibniz's solution to this as described in his _Monadology_ was to assume that neither of them actually caused anything outside of themselves at all, and that it was all planned in advance by a monad which subsumed both, much like a movie, in what he called "pre-established harmony"; at the top level he placed the "monas monadum", the "monad of monads", which established the entirety of this harmony, and which he identified with a rational conception of an impersonal absolute.
@Thundralight 2 роки тому
It would depend on your point in space you view it from , you are seeing the exact same thing at the same time just from different points in space like if you were viewing a parade from atop a high building or on the ground from 1 point you see it in its entirety and from the other point in space you see it passing in frames
@strangelittlegirl Рік тому
There are not two consciousnesses. There is only one. Humans are not conscious. Only consciousness is conscious.
@physicshacks6349 Рік тому
@@outisnemo8443 Leibniz monadology and preestablished harmony is saying everything In the universe is fixed before and also implies that free will is an illusion ,which is not true for scientists so far and it may be true . I don't know
@DeadChannel939 3 роки тому
"... Are you inventing your friend?" I take that personally.
@cosmosaic8117 2 роки тому
That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?
@angelraso2891 2 роки тому
@@cosmosaic8117 so let me get this straight , if I put a photesensible cell infront of the computer which lights if the function collapses in a certain way and then you see the cell move , his "concious" collapsed it ? Lol
@nealwright5630 4 роки тому
Gives a new meaning to the term “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.
@outofcontext728 3 роки тому
Yes.
@davizitopa7252 3 роки тому
That sounds extraordinarily bizarre if you and all your friends are used to D&D. It is pretty much gibberish.
@nealwright5630 3 роки тому
Ian Corral troll much?
@nealwright5630 3 роки тому
Ian Corral Ian Corral based on your replies, i can certainly see you would have no clue that my statement was an attempt at humor. Therefore, I can agree you would fully understand the Copenhagen Observation.
@nealwright5630 3 роки тому
Ian Corral exactly
@chaukeedaar 2 роки тому
I like how precise and non-mocking towards consciousness interpretations you stay during the entire vid. Respect for that!
@taylorfloyd4785 Рік тому
he was literally mocking the idea as mysticism and quackery the entire time
@treali Рік тому
@@taylorfloyd4785 The weird thing was that there was nothing concrete to debunk it though. Only subjective change of views. He did not do a good job of mocking it.
@MobBjj1 Рік тому
@@treali the weirder thing is that it’s an un-falsifiable theory like millions of other theories. Just cause you can’t prove it wrong doesn’t mean it’s real
@treali Рік тому
@@MobBjj1 I just noticed that my comment got removed which sucks because I won't type it all out again. tldr: I don't believe in quantum wizards, but I will never accept someone using "this person had a subjective belief X and changed his subjective beliefs to Y, therefore it's irrefutable evidence that X is false". You understand that it's not scientific right? If that passed as evidence, then quantum physics would never have come into existence because Einstein himself did not believe in quantum physics and gods throwing dices. If something is outrageous and doesn't make sense, then simply ignore it. If you take up the challenge to disprove something, then you better do a fine job or else you will just make people more skeptic of science. Science is exact and objective. It is not based on peoples subjective beliefs. I can imagine that you're not in any scientific field and are more inclined towards the humanities. You would understand what I meant otherwise.
@99certain45 Рік тому
@@MobBjj1 Agreed. If it's just one guess amongst millions of possibilities, you can't take it seriously
@shiddy. 2 роки тому
6:05 please, please consider doing a short bio on Wigner's personal life I've heard bizarre, hilarious stories about other famous scientists who got stuck somewhere alone with Wigner and almost immediately entered the twilight zone - he had a reputation for it and I want to know more
@drewishaf 4 роки тому
I love this channel for continuing to satiate my intellectual appetite and remind me that no matter how much I try to learn, there are always incredibly complex systems that will forever elude my understanding
@joshuahillerup4290 4 роки тому
This stuff is a lot easier if you learn the math for it. Of course, depending on your mathematical background so far that might be easier said than done.
@drewishaf 4 роки тому
@@joshuahillerup4290 as someone with 3 years of calculus (including linear algebra and differential equations) classes under his belt, i can tell you that conceptually there is a lot of disconnect between what the mathematics ahows and the implications for our fundamental understanding of reality.
@joshuahillerup4290 4 роки тому
@@drewishaf did those math classes cover things like Hilbert spaces and Fourier transforms?
@Ray2311us 3 роки тому
It also seems like this stuff is either a distraction from the real truth or they took important information out to keep us clueless.
@noname2250 2 роки тому
In the words of Homer J. Simpson: neeeeeerd
@himerosTheGod 4 роки тому
“Magic is simply a science not understood yet”.
@medexamtoolsdotcom 4 роки тому
More like, that which is possible but currently believed to be impossible is simply currently misclassified as magic. But that doesn't mean there are not still plenty of things that are actually impossible.
@KlavierMenn 4 роки тому
@@medexamtoolsdotcom But anything with a probability to happen WILL hapen given enough time, right?
@jgrtrx 4 роки тому
@@KlavierMenn It might depend on your interpretation of probability.
@destree6348 4 роки тому
I realized this just a couple days ago because I have a scientific background but I'm learning about and interested in working with spirituality. It's all so fascinating
@destree6348 4 роки тому
@Michael Bravo Just because I may view it differently than you doesn't mean it's wrong
@donaldcarpenter5328 2 роки тому
Have you seen the Star Trek episode in which the crew is detained by an entity that ALL of the inhabitants of the "world" SHARE a Conciousness? Do you remember everybody stepping on one another and how confusing it was the more joined in and the echo affect? Cool episode. THAT'S why MANY of us have been contemplating ideas such as these for awhile. We had CREATIVE fantasy & sci-fi fiction writers over the years!
@animdan Рік тому
Yup. Our world is shaped on fantasy, moving away from reality, which we will pay a huge price if we still get out of it alive... .
@mvrz6 2 роки тому
I pray to the creator of all these mysteries that this channel never stops producing videos
@Hurricayne92 4 роки тому
“Those that don’t understand quantum theory seem to be the most sure of it” I mean you just described the Dunning-Kruger effect.
@AionAeon 4 роки тому
""Those that don't understand..."" But no one understand. That mean everyone is most sure of it. And everyone is wrong.
@cheaterman49 4 роки тому
I think even some types of science communicators don't help on the subject: they use analogies to explain quantum phenomenon, which only gets you so far ; and if the writer/host is conscious of this limitation but fails to communicate it to the viewers, then they might be duped into thinking they learned more than they actually did. Obviously, a channel like PBS Space Time isn't guilty of this, but it might merely be a consequence of the intended audience ; if I was explaining quantum physics to pre-teens I would probably also take some shortcuts - but I'd be very careful to tell the audience.
@kx7500 4 роки тому
The dunning Kruger affect kind of goes the opposite in some ways like climate change though in the way you’re describing it. Skepticism is always okay but your skepticism should be proportionate to the evidence you have available to you that proves it. So never 100% but never 0%
@mattcooke3940 4 роки тому
If the electron is being driven by a pilot wave this will allow for the electron to pass through one slit while the electrons pilot wave passes through both slits creating the interference pattern
@cheaterman49 4 роки тому
@Harold Slick That's actually a good point, and I think it says a lot when his most well-known legacy is the Feynman diagrams, which are great for simplifying a complex problem, but aren't hiding anything away or making inappropriate analogies!
@dreimar1796 3 роки тому
i'm invisible! But only when no one, or anything, watch me.
@kennarajora6532 3 роки тому
Sounds like a Pilot wave theorist to me.
@patrickdegroot3692 3 роки тому
Are you a cat? I cannot see yet. Or perhaps I can. We just can't. Ohhh. What a mystery. Love. Love. love. Love!
@Anecdotal1 3 роки тому
Hmmmm.... I wasn't aware of your existence until a moment ago... you had no idea I existed... so by reading your statement did we collapse the wave function that now puts us in the same space-time...?? Hmmmmmmmmm
@suspiciousfigure3096 3 роки тому
I too, am a stalkers
@billihawk368 3 роки тому
No, reality is consciousness, so youre always the only visible one, the rest, yes they kinda dont exist when you are not aware of them.
@gregmcmurphy8241 2 роки тому
Thankfully the field of radiology oncology wasn’t frozen by the idea that a photon cannot be localized without conscious interaction.
@ryanp849 2 роки тому
Would you explain your comment a little further? Just curious, not skeptical about what you're saying.
@gregmcmurphy8241 2 роки тому
@@ryanp849 just saying that x ray and gamma and positron radiation is aimed at targets, seem to hit the targets. We let them fly and they hit the target even if we don’t look at each one.
@chrismah6248 Рік тому
But there is concious interaction, you measured it through the imaging machine and when you look at the results you have now interacted with the radiation. Functionally it kind of is the same thing that the double slit experiment does.
@NotRiansLuke 2 роки тому
Video starts off: "Does consciousness influence the quantum world? No." Later in video: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. The most confident interpretations tend to be the ones that think consciousness collapses the wavefunction." Or in this case, you know, the ones that think it doesn't. ;)
@Danboi. 2 роки тому
.. No! 😂 Yea, that was perfect
@ITSME-nd4xy 2 роки тому
When someone has a Ph.D. in physics, and you don't.... guess who has the lesser understanding of quantum mechanics.
@NotRiansLuke 2 роки тому
@@ITSME-nd4xy You must trust car salesman completely. By your own logic, they are the "experts," so who are you to question. If a car salesman tells you to buy, then you buy, damn it! There are other metrics besides "official education level." In fact, IQ is an even better predictor of life success than education. But you go on not questioning anything, if that's working for ya.
@ScienceAsylum 4 роки тому
Something I say a lot in my quantum videos: "Quantum mechanics is _not_ magic!" Thanks for making this video.
@albadarqamar7380 4 роки тому
Im ur big fan
@BinyaminTsadikBenMalka 4 роки тому
Love your vids man! Agree this video is on point.
@hckytwn3192 4 роки тому
The Science Asylum you’re an absolute crazy, you know that right? :-)
@benjystrauss2524 4 роки тому
However, the quantum world may allow us tech "indistinguishable from magic"
@hckytwn3192 4 роки тому
Benjy Strauss all jokes aside, I think this is an important point. Scientifically-minded people like to scoff and assign words like magic or mysticism to certain theories, but never even bother to define what “magic” is. Is “spooky action at a distance” magical? Einstein thought it was, and he used that phrase to insult the concepts of entanglement and non-locality. But in the end he was was wrong.
@darringreen8630 4 роки тому
My own personal wave function collapsed at the 12:23 mark when I finally realized Matt's sleeves were rolled differently.
@lucasortiz6826 4 роки тому
😂
@JorgetePanete 3 роки тому
👁️👄👁️
@mogiceo 2 роки тому
What if We live / experience a given set of collapsed wave functions. Matter tends to synchronize its collapsed state faster than light thanks to quantum entanglement. Just as much as we “see” a very small portion of the light spectrum thought “visible” light , we experience a slice of the space time continuum with our primate senses and brain.
@kevinwells5812 2 роки тому
"... and yet the most confident claims about quantum mechanics seem to be the mystical ones. They tend to be made by people who have never studied the theory deeply, but nonetheless have great surety in cherrypicking and misinterpreting the early speculations of some of its founders." Stated FAR more charitably than I would put it, lol ...
@harwn999 2 роки тому
Yet it’s a theory. Not proven fact. Regardless of how rigorously tested it is. It’s based on variables tested to validate an assumption. Local realism is based on an assumption. No hard proven fact. That’s why there’s no proven underlying physical reality to the universe in the quantum world which is the real world. Nials Bohr won the debate. The results are different for each independent observer as he said. Modern quantum theory, have had multiple theories that were vigorously tested and found out they were wrong when more variables were discovered.
@harwn999 2 роки тому
So he didn’t prove consciousness doesn’t affect the outcome.
@cosmosaic8117 2 роки тому
"True scientists are willing to change their minds"...look into Dean Radin's work and see if you're willing to do the same.
@cosmosaic8117 2 роки тому
That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?
@hoangtoonnt 2 роки тому
Mystic masters, they can see and understand true reality. They dont need to prove it to "blind" people. Similarlt Its just pointless to prove color existence to optical blind patients. So when "blind" one find evidence that reveal color, the aweaken one just simply say "told you so". Science can only offer you what you can see and nothing more. Since all material in this universe belong to this particular reality, they can not help you see other reality. the unseen will forever be unseen unless you "upgrade" your consciousness. Until then the best you can do is just guessing and imagine but never can fully comprehend it like those mystic masters.
@michelnoel4505 4 роки тому
When it comes to science, mysticism or philosophy, I found and experienced that the moment one accepts being an instrument that this invisible world, letting it freely come and go brings a wonderful experience when it happens. The idea of getting power over this larger than us reality is as primitive as feeling slaved by it. This reminds me of that time when my father laughed at me saying: how can you be so dumb thinking that water goes upward? Water always run downward. The funniest thing about it is that every week he was getting water from a natural spring. That is the kind of experience that helps a kid to get analyze before judging and keep an opened mind in all aspects of life.
@JimmyDShea 4 роки тому
Beautifully said! Thank you
@michelnoel4505 3 роки тому
JimmyDShea Expérience is a great reward for having made patience the foundation of a lifetime. Your comment gives it a value that I deeply appreciate and cherish. Thanks ❣️
@suspiciousfigure3096 3 роки тому
Yes, but gravity pulls the water down
@billihawk368 3 роки тому
Youre closed minded and biased by your childhood. Mahifestation exists, i dont say its the easiest thing.
@silentwisdom7025 3 роки тому
Sheeting action is a neat trick, it's caught me up more than once in my trade. Water climbs completely upward if sandwiched between two smooth objects.
@davidsensei8672 4 роки тому
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Oddly enough a very Taoist point of view
@AionAeon 4 роки тому
I don't understand QM but does it understands me?
@daleputnam8300 4 роки тому
The Uncarved Block
@dissonanceparadiddle 4 роки тому
@@AionAeon it understands you and every version of you
@Vasharan 4 роки тому
The converse is not true, however. If you don't understand quantum mechanics, that doesn't mean you understand quantum mechanics. But if you understand (or at least know how to apply) the mathematics (both symbolic and applied) of quantum mechanics, you can make useful predictions about quantum mechanics.
@reidsjaaheim8237 4 роки тому
Its almost like everything is a contradiction.
@wesleywardrip6366 11 місяців тому
They make the best science videos, he explains it so well without throwing in mysticism.
@mattias5157 10 місяців тому
I lack a very basic thing in this discussion though: a definition of consciousness. Or maybe I missed it.
@hofmannwaves1525 8 місяців тому
making the point exactly that he is only pretending to have on open mind by calling every logical explanation he doesn't like "mysticism"
@wesleywardrip6366 5 місяців тому
@hofmannwaves1525 mysticism isn't logical. There is no reason to believe the universe exists bc of our Conscience. It is likely something that just happens, probably rarely but possible in this universe bc of our laws of physics. Where it could be void and black in most others. Humans believe we are the center of creation and that's not true..
@TimothySmithDev Рік тому
He's right. The more you believe you understand about reality and consciousness, the less you actually do. That's why I trust this guy -- he's so confident, he's got to be right.
@TheRealReTox 4 роки тому
"Beyond Weird" quantum mechanics themed t-shirts would be very cool indeed.
@terryboyer1342 4 роки тому
@RDE Lutherie You wish! :)
@spencer_1997 3 роки тому
11:45 I'm convinced Matt is just a manifestation of my subconscious trying to shield my conscious mind from the solipsistic realization that the universe is a figment of my imagination populated with philosophical zombies. Or he's an agent and I'm in the matrix.
@sthoughtsarchive2791 3 роки тому
Lool
@niranjans1375 3 роки тому
This is just great , I was already freaked out enough thinking about that
@wolfgangkranek376 3 роки тому
Spencer, since you are just a manifestation of my subconscious - I didn't know I was that eloquent.
@andrewhoffmann9519 3 роки тому
He had a strong argument against that idea. It went something like this, "No"
@Invizive 3 роки тому
@@PlzPr3sspl4y at this point the best answer is that nobody's real - the fact of existence of my own experience is not falsifiable therefore impossible to prove therefore not objectively true.
@RichoRosai Рік тому
I thought the non-pop-sci consensus was that it wasn't consciousness but the physical act of interaction in order to measure that caused the collapse.
@bryandraughn9830 Рік тому
Right? People keep talking about "looking" at a particle. Yeah, that just happens to be impossible.
@TonkarzOfSolSystem 2 місяці тому
That is the pop-sci explanation, and it’s not correct.
@connorcriss Місяць тому
The wave function just never collapses. Brains do enter superpositions and conscious experiences also enters superposition. It doesn’t seem like it does, but it does
@GamingKeenBeaner 4 роки тому
In Buddhism, there is a concept of "non-self", that basically states in an ultimate sense, there is no self. The dividing line between each individual part of the universe is not absolute in any meaningful way. Philosopher Alan Watts stated this well when he said that "What you do, is what the whole universe is doing at this place you call "here" and "now". You are no more separate from the universe than a wave is separate from the whole ocean". So, even if quantum physics was subject to consciousness, one could argue that consciousness itself isn't an entirely individual phenomenon. The idea that consciousness can be both collective and individual is in many ways a perfect match for Quantum Theory in general. It also works well with Einstein's notion that radiation can be both particles and waves at the same time.
@PhotonShower 3 роки тому
hush hush my friend.. let them figure it out themselves
@evannibbe9375 3 роки тому
It makes far more sense to just use the rules of quantum mechanics and the fact that a superposition can only be fully realized between two quantum particles such that as more particles interact with each other, the wave function gradually collapses into measurements that are consistent with our theories.
@GamingKeenBeaner 3 роки тому
@Zeek Banistor "God" is just another perspective; in fact it may arguably be the ultimate perspective of this particular universe. Having seen this consciousness for myself, I find it difficult to imagine how it could possibly be assigned anything akin to a personality. Its broad beyond anything resembling "individual".
@wes_1001 3 роки тому
ego is an illusion we are all gods
@michaelmartin8337 4 роки тому
Anouncer: It's a dead heat! They're checking the electron microscope. And the winner is... Number three in a quantum finish! Professor Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
@billystandridge4208 3 роки тому
exactly...observance changes any measurement.
@billystandridge4208 3 роки тому
especially anything moving.
@hunterpatterson6986 3 роки тому
Oh. My. God. I never fully understood that joke. I just thought farnsworth was pissed because he lost. I TOTALLY MISSED THE ACTUAL JOKE
@gershommaes902 2 роки тому
I suspect my consciousness can manifest reality, at least to some extent; I can move my body at will (and through this movement I can have tremendous indirect effects!) I understand there are a range of deterministic arguments which seek to undermine any connection between consciousness and bodily action, and I tend to find these unconvincing. Consciousness seems to be the only self-evident fact, ever. All details we witness are uncertain (blurred by the resolution of our eyes, how alert we are, etc.), but the fact that we are witnesses is absolutely certain. This makes me sympathetic to arguments suggesting the primacy of consciousness.
@scarziepewpew3897 2 роки тому
Ahw, i guess all the paralyzed people are unconscious right? Again. Conscious doesn't mean in control. It means aware.
@scarziepewpew3897 2 роки тому
Yes our consciousness is the only thing we could be certain of but that doesn't mean it's fundamental.
@gershommaes902 2 роки тому
@@scarziepewpew3897 Who said all paralyzed people are unconscious? :)
@gershommaes902 2 роки тому
@@scarziepewpew3897 I haven't entirely solidified what I think about this, but from a certain perspective it seems that consciousness is as fundamental as it's possible to be - it's a truth which observes itself to be true, and the observation itself makes it more true!! hahaha
@josecipriano3048 2 роки тому
@@gershommaes902 I'd love an explaination on how moving an arm has anything to do with consciousness.
@marshalepage5330 2 роки тому
When you get to infinitely small levels of motion then you have to take into consideration that movement would be in infinite flux. This makes it not a collapse but an error of measurement in which you only see the location at the time of measurement. Which is why you would only see the infinite middle average which would produce what looks like an interference but is actually an error in the slowness of measuring something at such small levels when it is in infinite flux.
@raymondkidwell7135 2 роки тому
There are experiments that not just the act of measurement is influencing it but the conscious perception of the measurement. In the double split experiment when unobserved the photons act like waves, when observed they act like particles leading to a different pattern of movement on the wall behind it.
@Hoebo123 Рік тому
To me it just seems like they can’t find a solution because they don’t have all the variables. Maybe there is something that hasn’t been observed yet that is the reason for this confusing behavior. They have probably already thought of that but it just seems like there has to be more to it then what is currently understood.
@chrisauh Рік тому
@@Hoebo123 the missing link is consciousness
@Hoogalindo Рік тому
@@chrisauh lol
@chrisauh Рік тому
@@Hoogalindo time is relative to what? non-probabilistic quantum state finalization is determined by what?
@ianoxenham4219 4 роки тому
9:40 to 10:15 : I think this goes to show that Richard Feynman's statement is basically describing the Dunning-Kruger Effect as applied to Quantum Mechanics.
@santiagotomasso5184 4 роки тому
tbh all the explanations are mystical. I just cant get my head around a non mystical interpretation and havent heard one yet. Of course pretending that you know for sure the answer is a clear sign of unintelligence.
@Ironypencil 4 роки тому
@@santiagotomasso5184Depends what you mean by mystical. We have determined several restrictions on a valid theory of quantum mechanics (EPR-Paradox, Bells Theorem). We have basically proven that no quantum theory can be deterministic, local and causal. Most historical physical theories fulfill all of these criteria and it's easy to stray into mysticism once you drop one of these constraints: * A non-local theory will have some state that is valid throughout the entire universe, the mystic reading would be something like a god, or a global consciousness. * A non-deterministic theory, introduces randomness and you can attribute that source of randomness to some mystic being. * A non-causal theory, can be reduced to some kind of "destiny" from a mystic perspective. Until we have results further constraining a viable quantum theory, it's basically up to you to decide which constraint you are willing to drop.
@santiagotomasso5184 4 роки тому
@@Ironypencil yeah, to me a non mystical explanation would have to be local, deterministic and causal. Hence why I think the universe is mystical. Or simulated. btw Im not a native english speaker so there are room for misinterpretation, have that in mind.
@anticipatedprospects4633 4 роки тому
Nah he is just talking about Schrodinger's knowledge. You know about quantum mechanics and you don't at the same time till someone checks
@orlandomoreno6168 4 роки тому
@@santiagotomasso5184 Global detetminism. The universe is run by a machine, no mysticism.
@Pfhorrest 4 роки тому
You're probably going to get to this next time, but it seems like it was very quickly glossed over why Wigner's friend's brain entering a quantum superposition is so problematic. Surely each superposed state of his brain would only be aware of itself, not all the other superposed states, and likewise only be aware of the superposed state of the experimental result that it observed, not all the other superposed states of the experiment result hat resulted in all the friend's other superposed brain states; so when Wigner talks to his friend and so observes his brain state, Wigner only communicates with whichever state his friend's brain "collapses" to, which was unaware of there being any other states superposed with it, just like it's only aware of the one state of the experiment result. Of course, then Wigner's brain itself has actually just entered a superposition of different states wherein his friend's brain collapsed to different states upon observation, and when you ask Wigner what his friend reported, you'll only interact with whichever of the superposed states you observe Wigner's brain to collapse to... when, in fact, your brain just enters a superposition as well, and so on and so on as the information about the experiment propagates throughout the universe, splitting the entire thing into a superposition of universes where the experiment turned out in the different possible ways.
@leekleek1 4 роки тому
Ah a fellow intellectual
@Harry351ify 4 роки тому
In which case the most natural solution is the multiverse.
@leekleek1 4 роки тому
@@Harry351ify *multiple simulation
@myintkt13 4 роки тому
What you described is exactly what Many Worlds interpretation says
@davidhand9721 4 роки тому
This is what has turned me against QM from the first time I heard if it. If you model only the experiment in QM, you get different results than if you model both the experiment and the measurement device in QM. You have to stop your QMing at some point, or there is no result, but no link in the von Neumann chain makes any more or less sense than any other. QM is, then, contradictory; you can't observe a result unless you are not governed by QM, therefore QM must not be what governs everything. I know how impressive the alpha measurement prediction is, and the theory's other various successes. But there are other predictions that are horribly wrong. Why can't anyone seem to acknowledge that QM is, at best, incomplete, and at worst, contradictory? Every time I hear about the conflict with GR, the speaker assumes that GR is the problem. GR has produced predictions just as stunning, and continues to be proven over and over as we make more and better observations. It stands on a perfectly logical set of assumptions. The one and only thing it ever failed is the Bell inequality. But no, we must figure out how Einstein was wrong, because there is no QM representation of gravity. QM *must* be incomplete. There is no other possible way to see the measurement problem. The theory of everything will have to dramatically change the concepts of QM, as step one, before it can be taken seriously.
@el34glo59 Рік тому
Ashame no one in your comments section takes anything seriously. Good work man 👍
@snobrder4evr 2 роки тому
I love any time a UKposts video poses a question the answer is always a clickbait "no", but at least this video doesn't hide it for 10 minutes
@ohsteeev 4 роки тому
"Does quantum mechanics influence consciousness" is a more interesting question.
@marissajustice2411 4 роки тому
I mean yeah it does.
@marissajustice2411 4 роки тому
Quantum mechanics are the study of sub atomic particles. Which builds matter. Assuming conciousness is not metaphysical it is in the realm of our reality and we are made of these particles.
@vtbn53 4 роки тому
@@marissajustice2411 Assuming????
@libertequeliberteque3521 4 роки тому
@@marissajustice2411 Assuming the universe is a jar of peanut butter means that we are all peanuts..
@NessieAndrew 4 роки тому
Absolutely
@KohuGaly 4 роки тому
7:25 "how was it like, for your brain to be in superposition of states?" Well, the question assumes that such superposition can even be perceived. The whole point of superposition is that it's a linear combination of independent states. If it were possible to know that you're in superposition, then upon being observed, your wave function would not collapse into one of the independent states. It would collapse into some different state that contains knowledge of the original superposition. Which is a logical contradiction.
@ozzymandius666 4 роки тому
...or I could say "Relative to Wigner, my brain is in a superposition of states."
@88_TROUBLE_88 4 роки тому
What? No...
@shawnmurray50 4 роки тому
This is an underrated comment. Makes me wonder as well because our subconscious observes all independent states and gives the consciousness a summary, a consensus. One independent state that is the most accurate according to the observer. If we didn’t have our subconscious to chose which is correct/most accurate, I wonder how that could affect our perception of said slit experiment.
@ags5377 4 роки тому
Why do you assume the states are independent? They are only if decoherence has taken place. If you were to be in a coherence superposition then the different collapsed states will interfere which each other and some how that would lead to an unique experience. All that missing from the described experiment is to require the observers to be isolated to prevent decoherence
@vacuumdiagrams652 4 роки тому
The key problem is that "wavefunction" is something you use for describing other things. You can't even cogently talk about writing a wavefunction for yourself, so the very question is ill-conceived.
@RickMacDonald19 Рік тому
The physicists that won the Nobel Prize this year for proving non-locality might want to have a word about this.
@Pedanta Рік тому
Tell me more! What's the paper?
@jakedickerson1273 Рік тому
I’m not sure they meant what you think they do
@koho Рік тому
Not likely. Entanglement is irrelevant for something as complex as a neuron embedded in the mess of a brain.
@jondoe1195 Рік тому
Agreed. This idiot is an indoctrinated blowhard who needs a lesson in humility.
@melodytannerclark Рік тому
@@jakedickerson1273 I’m sure they did.
@WhatIsAge 2 роки тому
I really enjoy this dude's videos. Love the intro tune as well. Very "Sciency"
@dejayrezme8617 4 роки тому
How is Eye-brain-man not a meme template yet? Clearly the internet hasn't collapsed the consciousness wave function yet!
@clydeedwards8858 4 роки тому
Love this
@valmarsiglia 4 роки тому
Check out a band called The Residents. www.discogs.com/artist/6708-The-Residents
@cosmicjelly1509 4 роки тому
No, it's slowly integrating itself with it. Slowly enough that we suspect it, but can't say for sure without sounding off the rocker to people that don't think about or pay attention to those sorts of things.
@Skynet_the_AI 3 роки тому
I knooooow lol
@djmjr77 4 роки тому
I've just colapsed this wave function, and I'd like to thank you all for your participation in my reality!!
@agiff8690 3 роки тому
djm jr my pleasure but it’s mine
@siasromo 3 роки тому
our reality "1"
@djmjr77 3 роки тому
I knew ya'll were gonna say that 😉
@user-bt5qt9pp4x 7 місяців тому
I manifested a mars bar once. I thought really hard about how I wanted a Mars Bar, visualised it in my hands and then to my astonishment I went to the shop and bought one. I love this new age thinking
@clayhamilton3551 4 місяці тому
Would you have gone to the shop and bought one if you hadn’t been thinking really hard about wanting a Mars Bar? I think this is what manifesting is really all about. It’s not about magically making something appear. It’s about influencing your own consciousness to make decisions that bring about a desired result.
@user-bt5qt9pp4x 4 місяці тому
@@clayhamilton3551 Probably as I needed milk anyway! The universe is not a wish granting genie unfortunately but manifestation does come about because a will finds a way to turn an idea into a reality however when other wills are involved this can keep the reality as a fantasy
@Z4RQUON 2 роки тому
The *_Delayed Choice, Quantum Eraser_* experiment strongly suggests that the experimenters conscious knowledge of the _double slit_ result effects the outcome of the experiment.
@effedrien 2 роки тому
Also our knowledge about simulated neural networks (artificial intelligence) suggest that the brain scientists are a bit off track. Those neural networks are great for recognising incoming patterns, and you need a giant amount of them to interpret the input of a high resolution camera, like our eyes. But you know what you cannot do with those neural networks? Storing that image. Neural networks are pretty useless for storing data. Still the brain scientists assume that our memories must be stored in our brain configuration. Because where else could they be stored?
@MegaAwesomeNick 4 роки тому
you: What was it like for your whole brain to be in a superposition of states? your friend: **quickly hides drugs** oh what! No that's crazy!
@frogz 4 роки тому
....i just watched nick hide his own drugs after talking to thin air....
@keneteu 4 роки тому
*quickly hides the salvia*
@joaquinel 4 роки тому
Science from the highs
@Flyingtart 4 роки тому
@skOsH Testable, and not irreproducible, I'd say.
@Rek-55 4 роки тому
DMT, Ayhuasca )
@mowmowkuo 4 роки тому
“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics.” That’s very zen.
@jacobtierney4419 4 роки тому
The quantum mechanics that can be understood is not the true quantum mechanics.
@arttukettunen5757 4 роки тому
Oof for me
@scaper8 4 роки тому
More tao ("the tao that can be understood is not the true tao"), but, yeah. It certainly sounds just as mystic as the rest. LOL!
@silverharloe 4 роки тому
I wonder, was Feynmann anticipating the Dunning-Kruger effect?
@cyclicalcycler993 4 роки тому
If you dont know , now you know!!
@jaysonp9426 2 роки тому
I don't understand why its any more complicated than this: Placing a detector introduces something into the quantum world that shouldn't be there. It has a causal effect which changes what it was doing before the defector was introduced. Therefore consciousness "changes" the quantum world through observation.
@JayakrishnanNairOmana 2 роки тому
you are a clown.
@jaysonp9426 2 роки тому
@@JayakrishnanNairOmana thank you
@JayakrishnanNairOmana 2 роки тому
@@jaysonp9426 You are welcome. I think you were trying to say causal not casual, but please dont watch videos you cant understand or have a clue about, go watch disney stuff.
@jaysonp9426 2 роки тому
@@JayakrishnanNairOmana sorry, I don't understand this comment. All I hear is "I still live in my mother's basement."
@JayakrishnanNairOmana 2 роки тому
@@jaysonp9426 yeah right more-on.
@greggrobinson5116 2 роки тому
We have a big problem when we demand that quantum objects behave like the macro objects we're familiar with. They don't, so we can't use macro objects as models for quantum behavior, and that drives us crazy. BTW: Thank you so much for addressing this myth of quantum spiritualism. I wish you'd debunk the infinite multiverses supposedly generated continuously by quantum events. The idea is not falsifiable and therefore just speculation.
@schmetterling4477 2 роки тому
Many worlds has been debunked since it was suggested. Nobody in physics proper takes it seriously. It's only life is in the press and on the internet.
@Brindenentbrinder 7 місяців тому
not true! @@schmetterling4477
@adnaanu 3 роки тому
PBS Space time: does consciousness influence quantum mechanics? Warhammer 40K: Consciousness does influence the Warp
@user-gd5tr7gw7s 3 роки тому
In a fictive univers.
@highimpactsexualviolence5512 3 роки тому
@@user-gd5tr7gw7s I don't think he was claiming otherwise...
@butHomeisNowhere___ 2 роки тому
@@user-gd5tr7gw7s Liar. Warhammer 40k is real. I can't believe you'd say something so ridiculous.
@Averymoasycreek 2 роки тому
Yes! Another Warhammer 40k fan!
@claraerhemz2522 4 роки тому
"They say that it violates the principal of Occam's razor that the scientists should always keep entities to a minimum and it is ridiculous to ascribe reality to worlds you cannot be aware. If you take this argument seriously, then you are not allowed to ascribe reality to planets in distant galaxies...In the 19th century there were many physicists didn't believe in the reality of atoms, so it's not wise to ignore what the formalism is trying to tell you." --Bryce DeWitt
@johnhannon8034 4 роки тому
Why are you not allowed to ascribe reality to planets in distant galaxies when observation has shown that stars are orbited by planets and that galaxies contain stars?
@hyperfocus4866 4 роки тому
@@johnhannon8034 Also isn't reality consistent here aswell as there if we are goverened by the same laws.
@justindavis2711 3 роки тому
Except we have no way of ever observing other universes. But we have already observed thousands of exoplanets?
@pranav3041 8 місяців тому
When someone wakes me up for school i am both getting ready and sleeping in the same time until i wake up
@jasonbuckley4384 2 роки тому
“It's almost as if science said, “Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation." The one free miracle was the sudden appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, with all the laws that govern it.” Rupert Sheldrake
@lepidoptera9337 2 роки тому
Where did Mr. Sheldrake get the idea from that it was a sudden appearance? Sounds like somebody is having a vivid imagination.
@Jesus.the.Christ 4 роки тому
I am starting to think there is no collapse. Love the Wigner's Friend graphics.
@kkandthegirls6363 3 роки тому
You always give the clearest, most accurate and engaging explanations of the most difficult concepts in physics. Thank you.
@Ray2311us 3 роки тому
You’re welcome
@bloodyorphan 2 роки тому
Here's my take on the double slit experiment... The EM field is full of no velocity photons, a Photon moving at C is simply an aperture in space jumping along the SR monodimensional particle space (i.e. does not disturb the EM field an any practical and observable way because no mass is moving only the "hole" in space is moving). If the photon/particle aperture does interact with the EM field at the slot, you have a range of reactions that can occur depending on where the contact point is in relation to the center of the EM field particle(s). If it hits the EM field particle dead square on (zero degree offset from the center) the EM field particle will be accelerated directly away from the incoming photon/particle. If it hits the EM particles exactly in the center of two EM particles the resulting EM field movement will be two particles traveling at half the speed at an angle of 45 degrees offset from the incoming particle. This is all that is required for the full waveform interference result. There is no conscious observation required for this reaction :-)
@billjohnson3366 2 роки тому
the question is mind breaking when you try to look at reference points and dreams in relation to quantum mechanics. if you were to do physics experiments in a lucid dream and had a way to communicate duration of causality in the lucid dream with a real world observer. you start to ask yourself. were is the point in spacetime am i observing from?? were is consciousness located?? seriously id LOVE more info on what quantum physics can say about distance and speed when in a lucid dream. is literally everything happening all at once always everywhere and just your non locatable reference point of consciousness just moves through every possible position of everything at a constant rate.. the speed of light. chew on that lol
@poutineausyropderable7108 2 роки тому
Hmm, are you talking in essence ? Or actually? Yeah, with enough metaphorial warpings, sounds nice. Actually, the dream is just in your brain. Your "avatar" in the dream is probably some non constant entity. For actual purposes, I see no way its used in Quantum Mechanics. Qm is just math. Mostly, it's [A,B]. Commutation relation defined as [A,B] = AB - BA If A is go foward. And B is turn Left. BA = Go foward 1 m and turn right. (North facing west) (0,1,90) AB = Turn right then go foward 1m. (East facing east). (1,0,90) [A,B] = (1,-1,no rot) [A,B] is go foward The go foward and go left by 1 meter each. Don't change your orrientarions. Whats important is that mesuring in QM change a state. Like if you have a list of states called |n>. Including |0> , |1> , |2> ,|3>,... Then A numbering opeator N so that N|n> = n|n>. It multiplies the state by the value its assignement. When theres on state, there's no problem. But when there's many in a superposition. Lets say: |phi> =( |0> + |2>) # /sqrt(2) : for normalisation. n|phi> = 0|0> + 2|2> = 2|2> #/ 2 for normalisation. So if = phi(x). = cos(nx) Then (1 + cos(2x) ), when you'd measure it, it would change to the state to 2cos(2x). In QM, every measure is done this way. You have a state. Which can be described using the property youd like to measure: |n> is an eigen vector/function. (Its not changed when applied the corresponding operator other then being scaled). n is an eigenvalue. It"s a real number. The stuff you'd measure. Like |n,x> So H|n,x> = E_n |n,x> N|n,x> = n|n,x> X|n,x> = x|n,x> Its always gonna be: Operator|state eigenvector> = Eigen Value |state eigenvector>. If it was just 1 state, the scalor multiple doesn't change anything. As te last steps is always to devide the norm of the state is one. But when theres many, it change the proportions. Where E_n is the energy of the n^th state. H is the Hamiltonian. Briefly it"s the total energy in operator form. ----- The last thing is that wavefunction collapse. When you measure , it will take one of the state with probability |a_i|^2 that its the superposition. Like if you had |phi> = Sqrt (1/4) |0> + sqrt(3/4)|1> Then you'd have 1/4 chance of having the 0th state. And 3/4 change that having the 1st state. And you'd get the energy that goes with it.
@WilliamFord972 4 роки тому
The “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment sounds a lot like Schrödinger’s Cat.
@roygbiv176 4 роки тому
It essentially is except that human physicists are more likely to acknowledged the sentience of another human (that can articulate it), rather than an illiterate feline that can more easily be passed of as a solipsistic projection.
@nibblrrr7124 4 роки тому
schroedinger apparently really didn't like cats... how was that Wigner guy like? :^)
@roceb5009 4 роки тому
"Hey Erwin, I'm having a problem with an experiment. I put my friend in a box with some poison, a Geiger counter, and some radioactive material. I gave him a phone so he could call me and tell me whether he was dead, but instead he just kept calling to demand I let him out. what should I do?"
@lukefreeman828 4 роки тому
RoCeb you could sell that joke to XKCD 😂
@user-ec6kt2fg7m 4 роки тому
@@roceb5009 First assume the friend is imaginary.
@Ishabaal 4 роки тому
Wow, now this was a good episode. Had me on the edge of my seat, can't wait for the next one.
@iloveamerica1966 4 роки тому
I was both on the edge of my seat and recumbent...until your post collapsed my wave function leaning against my pillows.
@morrigancollins2092 2 роки тому
I love how he throws shade with a perfectly straight face. "I will keep you up to date as this important debate evolves."
@dennisjones2414 Рік тому
thanks for helping me to expand my knowledge, very much appreciated 🙇
@anthonyperederiy6782 3 роки тому
in a competition: Professor Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
@kaganozdemir4332 2 роки тому
I'm arresting you for defying the laws of physics, Mr Schrödinger
@ChuckCreagerJr 4 роки тому
I find it rather interesting that this video makes no reference to delayed Quantum eraser and other Witch Way path experiments. These experiments show that the availability of information is key. The way to answer this question is to test erasure at every possible point up until a conscious detection. One additional point it said we should not confuse consciousness causing the collapse of the wave function, with consciousness affecting the result of that collapse
@AuntBibby 4 роки тому
Chuck Creager Jr. right! correlation, not causation
@laz001 2 роки тому
I have wondered this for years - is the brain a Quantum Antenna? Thanks for talking about it! A question: Can you describe how the double slit experiment has progressed over the years? Surely the first experiment didn’t have the capability to isolate individual electrons? Can we do that now?
@cosmicraysshotsintothelight 2 роки тому
Ask Tesla, or Ramanujan... or Einstein or Newton. They all claim to have tapped into a universal 'database' while 'meditating'. Something is up. Everything will all slam back down to a single point before normal humans figure it out... just kidding. Oh and yes we have devices that can produce single electron events and we have single photon 'emitters' now as well. Enter either into a google images search and photos will be found, click those to see articles. I love searching via Google Images because it produces pages of photos instead of pages of links and text descriptions that fill the page with a shorter list you then have to search through again. Google Images is great! You see what your search found and then recognize your target faster than regular google in many cases. Click click.
@1Hol1Tiger 2 роки тому
@@cosmicraysshotsintothelight Einstein meditated?
@cfhaze3245 2 роки тому
Your thoughts aren't just in your head. You're broadcasting them into the field like an antenna
@spaceowl5957 Рік тому
Sounds wacky but I think information processing machines, like our brains, might be antennas for consciousness
@laz001 Рік тому
@@spaceowl5957 - oooooo- that is something I’ve never even considered!! What if ‘consciousness’ is some sort of physical ‘ether’ - everywhere, but only a brain is constructed in the right way to tap into it… wow.
@jslevenson101 2 роки тому
Princeton U did a psychic studies in one study was if you try to affect an action of something, it has a positive effect. Then the study was stopped. An article I read about brain waves are like alternate currents, vs direct current. a reference made to human mind kind of works like an alternate current and that's why you have opposing thoughts seemingly running right after each other but what it is, it allows your mind to do a volley back and forth, to choose the best choice when that time is made to make that choice.
@cesarsosa4617 3 роки тому
What if the wave function is relative. As soon as two quantum systems interact, their wave probability function collapses, but from outside this system, the wave function of these systems is still intact. In such scenario, consiousness is key to collapsing the wave function, not because anything mystical, but because the consious system has interacted with the quantum system at the moment of measurement. The consious system would not be considered an outside system anymore
@cesarsosa4617 3 роки тому
Redfern Pitcher it has nothing to do with consciousness. I thought i was onto something new here, but i wasn’t. What i call relative, physicist call entangle. In other words, the reason a conscious system collapses a quantum system is because it gets entangled with it, but this also happens with unconscious systems.
@trenvert123 3 роки тому
There was a Veritasium video on this subject. Though, consciousness wasn't what made the wave form collapse, it was that we became entangled with the experiment, and observed a collapse of the wave form because that's all we are capable of experiencing..
@yinyang2385 3 роки тому
What if the subatomic universe existed within a dimension of its own which is governed entirely by the laws of quantum physics and when interaction to measure the process comes from a source located in the physical dimension then the effect of the physical laws upon the quantum laws causes the collapse? So in other words the intersection of external forces on internal forces.
@yinyang2385 3 роки тому
@Roger Loquitur Are you suggesting that Quantum Physics and atoms are imaginary?
@MichaelPhillipsatGreyOwlStudio 4 роки тому
I've frequently tried to collapse wave functions with my mind. So far, no luck.
@Kycilak 4 роки тому
You must be doing it wrong, I've collapsed every wave function I've encountered. I have yet to see uncollapsed wave function.
@MichaelPhillipsatGreyOwlStudio 4 роки тому
@@Kycilak I agree. I'm quite certain I'm doing the quantum mind-control thingy wrong. I'd really like to uncollapse my wave function on this planet and collapse it somewhere else, but, sadly, it never works.
@ITSME-nd4xy 2 роки тому
@@MichaelPhillipsatGreyOwlStudio In trying to "uncollapse [your] wave function on this planet," are you using the right parameters, for example those appropriate for a really flat-earth? Surely that'll guarantee success.
@willrogers8912 Рік тому
If one observer exists in a different spacetime location from another observer, then they can never be in the same time. Each observer/location has it's own unique time, so simultaneity can only exist relative to a single observer. It is impossible for anything to happen between two separate observers/locations simultaneously.
@Reality_Road 3 місяці тому
I wanna use Heisenberg uncertainty principle and say: to understand something, there are two aspects (in detail vs big picture) type of understanding. If you go so much in detail u will loose the big picture and if you go too much big picture you will loose the details. So I think the in detail view is what scientists do and the big picture view is what philosophers do and I think we need both. By the way I have used the Von-Neumann interpretation together with other types of logical chain ending in non-material in my video "Four times Logic Progression ends in a non-material constituents of reality. " If you had a chance to look at it will be happy to hear your opinion about it. Thank you very much for awesome video.
@bryanandrews5214 2 роки тому
The problem with one person manifesting reality is that there are too many damn people and conflicting perceptions. Even if we could, we would have to fight against billions of other people doing the same thing. Also; it's not consciousness that defines reality, it's perception. Which can be as simple as two compounds 'realizing' that they are next to each other and reacting
@sikleanne121 2 роки тому
No its feeling and perspective. And ur conscionusness is What feels the feelings and perspective
@tristanband4003 Рік тому
@@sikleanne121 feeling has no impact on anything. It's just a reaction to things.
@MiguelMedV 5 місяців тому
@@tristanband4003 I used to think the same a year ago, but wow, life really has a way of showing you the impossible. I literally see myself in your comment, and now I'm here...
@Artistwannabe 4 місяці тому
@@MiguelMedV Why are people always so vague when they say something like this? Keeping stuff purposefully vague is annoying, not mystical.
@MiguelMedV 4 місяці тому
@@Artistwannabe Sorry, wasn't my intention, but I won't tell you every single "illogical" and seemingly impossible thing that's happened to me, so I'll sum it up saying "Life has a way of showing you". I meant every word I said 🤷🏻♂️...
@quietearthMT 4 роки тому
"I think, therefore I might be"
@sycamorph 4 роки тому
Tbh if religion didn't exist this would have been the quote probably. And then Descartes would probably go insane.
@user-vs1cm8nv5i 4 роки тому
"thinking arises but is empty of self" - the Buddha
@janicepedroli7403 2 роки тому
Thank you so much for your presentation on. predestination. You made me realize in every situation. all things are possible. Today for me everything is possible there is not just one way things can go. I needed to realize that tonight thank you so much..I will be spending more time in meditation but thanks so much.
@Zothaqqua 2 роки тому
0:19, where your intro graphic says “Earth's Rotation”, the Earth is shown rotating in the wrong direction.
@dominikbeitat4450 4 роки тому
The more I understand, the less I understand. My brain is in a superposition of knowing and not knowing. I am Wigner's friend! Hi, new friend!
@Ivan.Wright 4 роки тому
Infinite information means infinite ignorance
@Bix12 4 роки тому
Socrates
@puskajussi37 4 роки тому
So tell us, how is the super position? Is it sunny there?
@Bix12 4 роки тому
@@puskajussi37 Look it up. It's in the Kama Sutra
@dominikbeitat4450 4 роки тому
@@puskajussi37 Well, some Romans might say it's above any other position, but the weather is so-and-so.
@coquio 3 роки тому
I'd also like to know how much quantum mechanisms affect consciousness.
@pureenergy4578 3 роки тому
Consciousness is the holodeck we are immersed within. This holodeck is why we are images/holograms within it. We are constantly being created as images because those quarks/atoms creating us are images. This holodeck is what people call God. This holodeck is our literal mother and father because IT is light and quarks/atoms spin as light.
@MrMMAJER 3 роки тому
@@pureenergy4578 also no
@pureenergy4578 3 роки тому
@@MrMMAJER You will have to argue with the physics books I read, like THE QUANTUM WORLD and HANDS OF LIGHT. BUT I don't have to give you any titles because YOU give none. So I say NO to you.
@jorgepeterbarton 2 роки тому
Penrose Microtubules
@Justin_Bic 2 роки тому
Does the tail wag the dog? Lol
@jamesruscheinski8602 2 роки тому
Could gravity from measuring device change the configuration of space-time for electron or photon? The change in configuration of space-time is carried from measuring device to detection monitor to eye of the observer?
@aryaman5496 Рік тому
Yesterday i was thinking about the same question and today i found your video randomly.
@sdfkjgh 4 роки тому
4:22 "Look, I'm a member of The Residents!" --The Alchemist
@sdfkjgh 4 роки тому
@@thotslayer9914: It's a multilayered reference. The quote itself comes from an episode of The Venture Bros., and it references en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Residents
@charlesjmouse 4 роки тому
More of a philosophical than a scientific questions I guess: Is 'our' problem with interpretations of quantum mechanics more a case of our minds being ill-equipped to grapple with the quantum world than the need for an interpretation at all? To my (limited) understanding it seems to me that the route of all attempts at interpretation are based in allowing a 'classical' observer to make sense of a quantum world... ...but if one accepts there is no such thing as a 'classical observer', being only an artifact of our wiring, and the 'observer' is as much a part of the quantum reality as the 'object' being observed doesn't that mean no interpretation is required? ie: The 'bare' equations of quantum mechanics are indeed the whole thing and our need for interpretation is only a consequence of our inability to grasp their meaning directly? So if quantum mechanics turns out to be as close as we'll ever get to a fully accurate model of 'reality' do we: -Continue to use these 'interpretations' knowing they are a mental crutch that says more about us than physics? -Strive to bend our minds to proper understanding of quantum mechanics knowing that my forever be beyond us? -Unsatisfactorily accept we have reached the point where we have a tool that allows us practicable access to the 'quantum world' but we are incapable of understanding that tool or the 'world' it describes? (A fish in a fish-tank has been given the 'ability' to see a world outside the water but will never be able to appreciate what it is to be a land animal)
@0ptimal 4 роки тому
If the fish is curious enough, maybe he will evolve in time to know the outside world.
@PADARM 4 роки тому
Yes, indeed. We are like ants trying to understand what the sun is
@Georgia-Vic 4 роки тому
It's impossible to know something that's only a hypothetical and abstract theory that's incomplete at best!... so ponder that fact.
@paulmichaelfreedman8334 4 роки тому
What you are describing or implying is that the universe might be a simulation. Simulated objects (i.e. you and I) cannot have a way of knowing or measuring the simulator. While the simulator knows ALL about us. In extension, also the GOD question. Like running linux in a Virtual machine in windows. The Linux OS has no way of knowing if it is directly running on hardware, or that it is being simulated within another operating system where the hardware is being simulated. Windows, however, knows EVERYTHING happening within that linux session. If we are indeed a simulation, the only way to actually prove it, is to find a way of tricking the simulator intodoing something that will give a telltale sign. Seeing the analogy here with modern astrophysics? Astrophysicists are trying nothing else than to do this, in a way. Trying to find testable ways to prove something. In short, we need a way of hacking the universe. Literally.
@Georgia-Vic 4 роки тому
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 nope i never said or even implied that the universe or you and we're a simulation, it was you that thought that because you failed to see my simple point and because of your bias and prejudice you don't see what I attempting to convey because you are indoctrinated on account of your subjective and closed minded thinking so go back and re-read my above statement without taking my intent out of context and maybe you can eventually drop your outdated beliefs and break on to the other side!
@tw8464 5 місяців тому
This is an excellent video and thank you for making it. The double slit experiment has always given me a strange feeling about how there's so much we don't know. I don't really know what happens with "collapse of the wave function." I'm not a physicist or anything. Something I just now thought of while I was watching your video, is the possibility that what is actually happening in the double slit experiment, our level of consciousness might not be able to truly or fully perceive it. Your video shows the chain of electrons moving from the detector to the computer to the organic brain, and all are operating on quantum level as well. But the organization of matter in the human brain may not be organized enough to perceive exactly what is actually happening, so what we see happening, we might falsely interpret as "our consciousness somehow made it happen." The "collapse" might be just our perception of something that's really more complicated or something else happening. That is just a thought and I look forward to learning more about quantum theory. In any event, as you indicate, it seems the popular "consciousness collapses the wave function" interpretation may not be the only possible interpretation. Greatly appreciate your information and sharing about how much the field has developed since the early days, which we don't hear so much about but we should. Would love to see more videos about the modern development.
@Danboi. 2 роки тому
"how'd it feel having your brain in a state of super position?".. Love the graphic of eyeball guy at his computer 😂
@tyjules9643 2 роки тому
the problem arises when he tries to show the absurdity of consciousness collapsing it with the second example of simultaneous observation when it would be likely impossible to have two observers see something at exactly the same time, there would always be one first that observes even by a fraction of time, and the second would be seeing the result of that collapse
@Astral_serpent 4 роки тому
"If you think you understand Brahman, you do not understand, and have yet to be further instructed. FOR THE BRAHMAN is unknown to those that know it, and known to those that know it not." -Alan Watts (The Greatest)
@StanTheObserver-lo8rx 4 роки тому
How funny,I thought it said THE BATMAN...
@garetclaborn 4 роки тому
@@AyushSharma-jz1jo it is similar to the hebrew 'Or Ein Sof', but much more hindu. the primordial light and root from which existence both spiritual and material originate
@zhe2en171 4 роки тому
I too felt the need to bring up Alan Watts! Thanks! :)
@mso2802 4 роки тому
@@AyushSharma-jz1jo ukposts.info/have/v-deo/moKjq46ihKqdpYU.html
@AyushSharma-jz1jo 4 роки тому
Okay I get it it's all infinity, existence, from with everything originated and everything will collapse. But how do you explain it to a rational person who only understands the nature through the language of mathematics? @garet claborn @mso2802
@pfontanesi 3 роки тому
What if there is only one field of consciousness pervading the entire universe and we cannot have two separate observers? Maybe we need to rethink those experiments.
@realzachfluke1 3 роки тому
Maybe not though 🤷♂️🤔
@jaydens1936 3 роки тому
It's a solid theory. No one can deny that. Even the dude in the video admits it's possible. But it's not just possible. It's far more succinct a theory than anything else. Solves the collapse, and the hard problem of consciousness in one fell swoop.
@bufo7120 3 роки тому
Smoke some salvia and find out
@realzachfluke1 3 роки тому
Anime Sucks sprinkle it with some DMT and then snort some weeds lol
@SurajLamichhane 3 роки тому
this is the exact teaching of the Upanishads that Bohr and Heisenberg were crazy about, even Schrodinger. I'm not saying it's true, it's just the same philosophy.
@alib5967 2 роки тому
What is the discord server link to join it?
@gordondavis6168 2 роки тому
I went to school to be a quantum mechanic. I don’t know if this happens to anyone else, but sometimes when I wake up from a deep sleep, for about 10 seconds I am awake, but I have no memory. I don’t know who I am, and I have no memories. I am aware that I am awake and thinking, wondering who I am. Then my memories and sense of self comes rushing back. It is strange to be awake with no memory, except for knowing that I should be remembering something.
@schmetterling4477 2 роки тому
Drinking less the night before works wonder.
@jonathanclark5240 4 роки тому
Love the reference to "What the bleep do we know?"--I remember when that movie was filmed in Portland. Thanks for another great episode!
@ericgraham8150 4 роки тому
Oh thats cool, I didn't actually know it was filmed here! I remember our science teacher showed it to us in highschool
@Lexivor 4 роки тому
I actually saw that in the theater, It was so bad I nearly walked out.
@PtakubJ 4 роки тому
11:45 Me: So actually the easiest way to solve this problem is solipsism and world full of philosophical zombies, that's pretty deep, I really... Matt: No.
@medexamtoolsdotcom 4 роки тому
Indeed, that is the better question that needs to be considered first. Does consciousness even actually exist? What experiment can be performed to distinguish between a legit person and a philosophical zombie/NPC? There may be none, that's kind of in the definition of a philosophical zombie, is it not?
@Skinnymarks 4 роки тому
Solipsist a networked consciousness. Conflict solved.
@Stardust_Lily 3 роки тому
@Don Johnson I don't think that was the point of his TED Talk. The whole thing was full of sort of backhanded humor, and he even closes it out casting doubt on the idea of a simulation: "If our physics is inconsistent then we're likely in a simulation, if it is self consistent it is more likely being real, because it just takes more to do that. [...] Humans beings are not well equipped for determining reality; physics -- so this actually a selling point for physics -- is a fundamental test of our realness ..."
@plantae420 3 роки тому
The probability is higher that all quantum physicists in the world lie to you and that we live in a newtonian univers than that you are the only consciousness in the univers. Because everybody knows that you are just a product of MY subconscious!
@nios7700 3 роки тому
i am understanding from your point that from this perspective life is shaped by only ones concious just like in a video game where you have the primary character or hero and the others are just slaves of his perspective bcs the whole video game revolvse around it?
@joeygarza9550 Рік тому
The _Dancing Wu Li Masters_ was a pivotal book for me in that it allowed me to really grasp quantum manifestation and the whole mind into matter mechanics of the universe without all the math. I can't recall any other book that seemed pertinent or important enough to integrate personally. In fact, I re-read passages from that book countless times in different states of mind in attempts to grok the ideas on a subconscious and subliminal level because simply highlighting passages was not enough. Even the title itself seemed to call out to me... like one of those books you'd find in _Elder Scrolls: Oblivion_ that instantly raises your prowess, awareness, and certain abilities when you encounter them. I read it in conjunction with _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance_ which shattered my mind and I remember _Dancing Wu Li_ fixed it.
@mwngw Рік тому
I met the author Gary Zukov some 20 years ago.
@krakykrake8162 2 роки тому
"and more electrical signals in other parts of the brain results in an subjective sense..." Nice way to say "and then a miracle occurs". We have no idea how any physical descriptions could explain consciousness. Its one of the most hardest problems around. It's just an assumption that brain creates mind because of a pure materialist paradigm.. even Integrated information theory, which tried to explain consciousness in physical terms ended up at a panpsychism metaphysics..
@Chirokelley 2 роки тому
One person’s “outlandish” is another’s “physics”.
@pureenergy4578 2 роки тому
Do you know that we are in the middle of worldwide nazism? Watch these 2 videos: www.unite4truth.com/post/reiner-fuellmich-david-martin-patent-data-destroys-entire-covid-19-government-narrative-video?.
@jacobd4421 2 роки тому
these types of videos are rife with conjecture, and only loosely based on the research of the topic. I recommend Sabine Hossenfelder
@cosmosaic8117 2 роки тому
That second example is absolute garbage because they are both consciously experiencing that moment together and making a conscious observation simultaneously. That does not in any way refute the original example because the facts remain that in the first example the friend is not collapsing the results with his consciousness and in the second result he is collapsing it. If observation is indeed all important, then how does the friend participating in the observation "refute" the original example where he's not participating in observation?
@jamesruscheinski8602 3 роки тому
Transition from quantum to classical somehow occurs when there is a measurement. A measuring device is part of classical world, which might add energy to quantum wave function. Maybe something is added from measuring device to quantum wave function that forms particle.
@jamesruscheinski8602 2 роки тому
Could space be wave on which an electron or photon travels? Maybe the electron or photon distributes in space, until measured? The measuring device changes the configuration of space-time for electron / photon? Configuration of space-time for electron or photon remains changed from the measuring device to the display monitor to the eye of the observer?
@oatlord 8 місяців тому
If you take two entangled particles apart far more than light could travel three distance in an hour or so, sync your clocks, and then perform a measurement at exactly the same time (with relativity taken into account), what would happen? Would the wave functions collapse in one faster than light?
IIRS Outreach Programme, Dehradun
Переглядів 27
PBS Space Time
Переглядів 1,5 млн
The Institute of Art and Ideas
Переглядів 446 тис.